formiko wrote:I hope, but why do you say that? He's still mighty popular.

Why do you hope, exactly? I think that he's doing the best he can. Although it may not be up to everyones standards, it's still a helluva lot better than Bush. In fact, I would vote him in for a second term just so we don't have another Republican shitstorm to clean up.

In addition, it seems as if the Republican members of congress are taking a Groucho Marx stance on any bills Obama supports, i.e. "Whatever it is, I'm against it!"

You have it backwards. It's commonly thought that the American people, at least most of them, inherently want a Democratic president, but after we have one, we usually need a Republican to clean up the Democratic spending "shitstorm."

On your second point, that could be the reason why many Democratic congressmen are being replaced by Republicans, the American people do NOT want Obama's bills to pass any more.

Lastly, can you tell me what Bush did to warrant his term being called a shitstorm, and "helluva lot" worse than "not up to everyone's standards?"

Native: English (NW American)Advanced: Spanish Intermediate: French Beginning: Arabic (MSA/Egyptian) Some day: German

Like it or not, spending is a part of Government. We Americans are particularly tight-fisted, especially when it comes to taxes. I believe that we should raise taxes and have more services, whether or not we like it it comes out better for us in the end, yes I believe that socialism is a viable option.

Shitstorm probably wasn't the most 'miss manners' choice of a noun I could've used there but I do think it brings across my point more, shall we say, forcefully. As to Bush's two terms, Obama hasn't been expanding the national debt to astronomical proportions, as Bush did, and he hasn't been invading third world countrys because of a family vendetta against a certain dictator and then justifying it by saying we were looking for (now known to be nonexistent) WMDs. Obama hasn't employed a crack science fiction writer as his main source of information on climate change, and finally... he didn't falsely slander his opponents in political races.

Isn't it funny how the most national debt amassed was under Bushes 1,2 and Reagan?

I have heard a theory or allegation that the WMDs were transferred to Syria. The U.S. government knew that Saddam had WMDs because it had given him such weapons. It is not widely known that a large quantity of yellowcake uranium was discovered after the invasion. This stuff was not weapons grade. We couldn't be sure how many weapons had been destroyed and how many were hidden. But I think we wanted to show the Arab World that one can't fire Scud missles into Israel and expect to survive in power forever.

Also, to go to War, George Bush needed the approval of Congress, which he got with nearly no opposition. Reasons cited for this include: an intelligence report from the FBI saying Iraq had WMDs, the attempted assassination of former president George H.W. Bush, by car bombing, in Kuwait, suspected to be ordered by Saddam Hussein, and lastly, Iraq had been interfering with weapons inspections ordained by the Gulf War ceasefire agreement.

Native: English (NW American)Advanced: Spanish Intermediate: French Beginning: Arabic (MSA/Egyptian) Some day: German